Scribd
Upload
252 views2 pages

H83RED Exam Feedback Form 2011-2012

This document provides feedback on an exam for a Reactor Design module. It summarizes student performance on each question and suggests areas for improvement. For most questions, the majority of students answered correctly but some showed weaknesses in specific areas like labeling graphs, distinguishing reactor types, or applying equations correctly. The feedback aims to help students understand where they can strengthen their knowledge and exam techniques to perform better in the future.

Uploaded by

Devina Irene
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
252 views2 pages

H83RED Exam Feedback Form 2011-2012

This document provides feedback on an exam for a Reactor Design module. It summarizes student performance on each question and suggests areas for improvement. For most questions, the majority of students answered correctly but some showed weaknesses in specific areas like labeling graphs, distinguishing reactor types, or applying equations correctly. The feedback aims to help students understand where they can strengthen their knowledge and exam techniques to perform better in the future.

Uploaded by

Devina Irene
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Faculty of Engineering

EXAMINATION FEEDBACK FORM


Module Code: H83 RED

Module Title: Reactor Design Credits: 10 Semester: 1 Module Convenor(s): David Hassel and Chan Yi Jing Comments on individual questions in which students performance could have been improved and suggested strategies for improving performance in the future Q1 This question was answered by all students and overall the marks were good.

Q2

This question was answered by the majority of students and overall the marks were average. Those who did not label the graphs would not have obtained full marks. Some students confused between batch and CSTR design equations. This question was answered by a few students and overall the marks were below average. Most of the students failed to describe the different types of reaction. This question was answered by the majority of students and overall the marks were good. Only a few students failed to confirm the consistency of a monomolecular reversible reaction with the thermodynamic equilibrium.

Q3

Q4

Q5 Q6

This question was answered by only a few students and overall the marks were average. Some students failed to write the rate law correctly. This question was answered by only a few students and overall the marks were below average. Not many students were able to rearrange the energy balance equation to become a suitable equation to be solved in an ODE solver.

Q7 This question was answered by the majority of students and overall the marks were average. Some students failed to explain the reactive feeding and reactive distillation with the correct diagrams. Q8 This question was answered by the majority of students and overall the marks were average. Some students failed to include the effect of temperature on the selectivity. Q9 In general most students did well with this question. Some students had done mistakes in converting the unit m3 to dm3 which lead to wrong answer. Q10 Overall the marks were average. Some students failed to express the heat generation term and heat removal term correctly in part (a). For part (b), most of the students failed to differentiate the equations from part (a) with respect to temperature. For part (c), some students did not realize that the reactor will run away and explode when the gradient of heat generated exceeds that for heat removed. General comments about technique In general the students did well in this paper. The students show an improved level of understanding on the fundamental concept of the reactor design.

Notes The Faculty policy is that all module convenors should provide a generic examination feedback report for each module to the relevant group of students using the above template. The feedback should: (a) highlight examination questions on which students performance could be improved and suggest strategies for improving performance in the future; (b) give general comments about technique. The information should be provided by the date of the Examiners Meeting that considers the results at the end of the relevant semester, so that it is available to students when they receive their marks. The normal mode of delivery will be in pdf format via the U: drive.

You might also like